repeal SOCPA - repeal laws to restrict protest and free assembly

Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights' inquiry into Policing and Protest: Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest, March 2009

28 July 2009: Demonstrating Respect for Rights? Follow-up
The JCHR's second report on policing and protests in the wake of the G20 protest. This report also provides an update on protest around Parliament, the use of counterterrorism powers and civil injunctions, Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, protest in quasi-public space and the taking and retention of photographs. Read report

22 April 2009: Joint Committee on Human Rights reopens Policing and Protest inquiry "In the light of recent high profile events, including the G20 protests in the City of London, the Tamil protests in Parliament Square and the arrests at the Iona independent school in Sneinton, Nottingham, the Committee has decided to hold an oral evidence session on 12 May to follow up on its Report." more details.

20 April 2009: The Government responds to the JHRC report on policing and protest
A very short initial response but states that the Government "remains committed to the repeal of sections 132-138 of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 governing protest around Parliament". See details

Around Parliament (s132-138 SOCPA)
However the report also calls for additional police powers under s14 of the Public Order Act around Parliament and other 'alternative arrangements' to deal with noise and long-term protests. The report suggests that a 'designated area' 'within 300 metres of the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House', specified by the Secretary of State, would be acceptable even though this would extend well beyond Parliament Square and beyond Downing Street. The Committee announced their intention to table amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill to prompt debate and 'bring forward the necessary reform' of SOCPA relating to protest around Parliament. See below for more on the report's recommendations relating to protest around Parliament

At 'designated sites' (S128 SOCPA)
The report also suggests an amendment to s128 SOCPA relating to criminal trespass at designated sites which would 'permit the Home Secretary to designate sites on the grounds of national security only where it is necessary to do so.' While this may introduce a need for the designation of sites to be justified, the definition of 'national security' and 'necessary' remain unclear. See below for more on the report's recommendations relating to criminal trespass at 'designated sites'

Other recommendations
The report also makes a number of positive recommendations relating to more general (non-SOCPA) protest situations. See below for more on the report's recommendations

From the report: "In addition to its positive duty, the state is required not to restrict protests unless it is justified as being both necessary and proportionate to do so in pursuance of a legitimate aim: this is a high threshold. Whilst protests may be disruptive or inconvenient, the presumption should be in favour of protests taking place without state interference, unless compelling evidence can be provided of legitimate reasons for any restrictions and those restrictions go no further than is strictly necessary to achieve their aim."

12. Measures for dealing with protest around Parliament must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, including the need for the law to be predictable and certain so as not to be arbitrary. (Paragraph 125)

13. In our view, the maintenance of access to Parliament is a persuasive reason to restrict the rights to protest and to freedom of assembly within the areas directly around the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House. We also share the view of the parliamentary authorities that legislation on protest around Parliament should not differentiate between sitting and non-sitting days, in order to ensure that there is clarity and legal certainty for Members, the police and the public, although the way in which protest is policed should take account of the likely level of disruption to parliamentary activity. (Paragraph 126)

14. We share the view expressed by a range of witnesses that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 provisions should be repealed, principally because they have proved too heavy-handed in practice, are difficult to police, and lack widespread acceptance by the public. (Paragraph 127)

15. Advance notification of protest around Parliament should be encouraged by the Metropolitan Police, in order to facilitate safe protest, but should not be a legal requirement and no sanction should apply to those who choose not to notify the police of their intention to protest solely by reason of that choice. (Paragraph 128)

16. We recommend that the parliamentary authorities work with the police to develop clear conditions which can be imposed on protestors under the Public Order Act, amended if necessary to achieve this aim, to ensure that access is maintained at all times. Conditions might include requiring protestors to keep clear of the vehicular access points, to permit access to Parliament and to ensure public safety around the gates. (Paragraph 131)

17. We recommend that the Home Office, the police, Westminster City Council and the parliamentary authorities should develop alternative arrangements to manage noise levels from protest in Parliament Square, including consideration of whether legislative change is necessary and whether maximum noise levels should be imposed and enforced effectively. (Paragraph 133)

18. We have heard no good argument in favour of introducing an arbitrary limit on the duration of protests around Parliament, although we note the potential security concerns associated with the existence of the camp. We share the view of the Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill that the police power in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to impose conditions relating to security issues should be continued for the area around Parliament. We are also concerned to ensure that the existence of long-term protests does not prevent or deter other people from protesting in Parliament Square. The police should have the power to impose conditions on protests in order to facilitate protest by others – for example, where more than one protest takes place in Parliament Square on the same day. (Paragraph 134)

19. We note that the Greater London Authority may consider creating new byelaws to manage protest in Parliament Square, including to limit the duration of protests. Given the potential significance of these new byelaws for the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, we recommend that section 236A of the Local Government Act 1972 be amended to set out the framework for balancing relevant interests. (Paragraph 135)

20. We recommend that the Greater London Authority involve the police, Westminster City Council and the parliamentary authorities in discussions about any new byelaws; and that any new restrictions on the rights to freedom of assembly and expression are not disproportionate. (Paragraph 136)

21. We consider that protest around Parliament should be governed by the Public Order Act, in particular the police power to impose conditions on protests under section 14. There is a case, however, for amending section 14 to deal with the specific circumstances of Parliament. We recommend that the Public Order Act should be amended to enable conditions to be placed on static protests where they seriously impede, or it is likely that they will seriously impede, access to Parliament. (Paragraph 137) See proposed amendment

22. Crucially, we note that the onus is on the Government to bring forward the necessary reform which commands the support of the police, the parliamentary authorities and the local authorities. (Paragraph 139)

10. Many of the concerns which we expressed during the passage of the Bill which became the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 have been borne out in practice: we do not have confidence that section 128 has been implemented in a manner compatible with Convention rights, or that appropriate safeguards are in place to secure compatibility. We recommend that section 128(3)(c) be amended to permit the Home Secretary to designate sites on the grounds of national security only where it is necessary to do so. We suggest an amendment to section 128. (Paragraph 108)